2/3" Fixed vs. 2/3" Cinema?

[Dave Barak]

Please pardon me if this has been asked before (I searched), but overall, what are people's opinions regarding the Scarlet 2/3" Fixed vs. the Scarlet 2/3" Cinema paired with Nikon still photography lenses?

I've got a fair number of Nikon lenses. Things I'd like to consider:

- Obviously, optical quality

- Ability to use with a follow focus (I know the Nikon focusing rings focus opposite cinema lenses)

- Frame coverage using Nikon lenses

I was leaning towards the Fixed version, but now I'm thinking the Cinema version might be what I should consider.

 

[Rick Presas]

Beyond optics, you probably should also consider the price point of every other aspect of building your own 2/3" cinema scarlet.

A scarlet brain is only a scarlet brain. You'll need a bevy of other add-ons in addition to glass before you are able to shoot anything with it.

Though noting is certain yet, The fixed glass "complete kit" will likely be ready to shoot right out of the box, or at the very least require far less peripheral equipment.

If you have the money for it, i'd say definetly go with the regular scarlet 2/3" cinema over the fixed lens version. Keep in mind, even before the cost of optics, a full camera setup will likely run you around $10,000.

 

[Dave Barak]

Thanks for the fast response Rick!

If the price difference between the two is that wide, I'll probably go for the Fixed version, unless I get a cash windfall. I can always sell my Nikon glass (bought for a 35mm DOF adapter) to add to the kitty for the camera.

 

[David Rasberry]

Several issues with 35mm format lenses on a 2/3" sensor.
1. Crop factor of about 3.8. The equivalent field of view of 50mm normal lens on ff35 is about 14mm on 2/3".
2. Lens controls. No electronic lens controls for Nikons. Nikons with manual aperture and focus will be OK.
3. Lens resolving power. Unless you have the very best top of the line Nikons, the fixed lens will likely be noticeably sharper and better matched to the sensor.
4. All the renders for fixed Scarlet show a geared focus ring and it has been affirmed that manual focus will be included.

 

[Dave Barak]

Thanks David! I think I'm leaning back towards the Fixed model, although if any rich relatives kick off before the cameras are launched, I might for for the Cinema model.

 

[Rick Presas]

The problem is that we're really not sure how wide the price difference really is yet, and we really wont be able to know until the date of release.

Nor do we even know what kind of glass will be on the fixed. In the past I've had good expereinces with Canon and Panasonic putting very nice glass on their fixed lens cameras, and I imagine RED will follow suit and give us a pretty versatile and practical zoom lens.

but if we're lucky, RED will give us something AWESOME, not just good. It wouldnt surprise me given their price/quality track record.

 

[Dave Barak]

I have no doubts that what we get from Red will be awesome. ; ) Time will tell which model of awesome I end up with!

 

[Scott C.]

Several issues with 35mm format lenses on a 2/3" sensor.
1. Crop factor of about 3.8. The equivalent field of view of 50mm normal lens on ff35 is about 14mm on 2/3".

David,

Don't you mean the other way 'round? A 50mm still lens with a crop factor of 3.8 = 190mm? I know that my 16-35L is approximately equal to a 25-56 on a 1.6 crop sensor.

 

[David Mullen ASC]

He said "equivalent" FOV -- to match the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF35 camera, you'd use a 13mm or 14mm lens on a 2/3" camera. If you put a 50mm lens on a 2/3" camera, you'd have the FOV effect of a 190mm lens on a FF35 camera.

This is the problem with using still camera lenses on a 2/3" camera -- you'd need much shorter focal lengths than you'd normally use in FF35 still photography. Typical zooms for 2/3" cameras start in the 7mm range at the wide-angle end, to give you an idea.

 

[Scott C.]

He said "equivalent" FOV -- to match the FOV of a 50mm lens on a FF35 camera, you'd use a 13mm or 14mm lens on a 2/3" camera. If you put a 50mm lens on a 2/3" camera, you'd have the FOV effect of a 190mm lens on a FF35 camera.

Ooh, you're quick, I was just coming back to delete that after thinking it through. :idea: Big DUH on my part.

 

[David Rasberry]

David,

Don't you mean the other way 'round? A 50mm still lens with a crop factor of 3.8 = 190mm? I know that my 16-35L is approximately equal to a 25-56 on a 1.6 crop sensor.

Works either way multiply it up or divide it down. If I wasn't clear I meant to say that a 50mm lens on an FF35 camera is equivalent FOV to a 14mm lens on a 2/3" camera.

 

[Peter Franzen]

Please forgive me if this has been answered in another thread somewhere, but the discussion of crop factors leads me to ask this: Are Canon EF-S lenses supported in addition to the EF mount? That would make the 2/3" sensor with interchangeable lenses a much more compelling option if it's the case.

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

I believe the widest (rectilinear) Canon lens is 10mm. (The 10-22mm zoom, or the Sigma 10-20mm). On 2/3", This will equate to about 38mm on FF35, e.g not very wide at all. For decent wide angle on 2/3" you'll need something like a 7.5mm.

I would look into 16mm PL lenses, maybe there are still good used buys around?

 

[Tom Lowe]

So what kind of lenses are even available for 2/3"? Wides? Primes? Good zooms. I only ever remember using Fujinon and Canon zooms on the few Varicam and F900 jobs I worked on, never primes or anything real wide.

Pawel was mentioning on another thread that the Canon HJ40x would be awesome on 2/3" Scarlet cinema, but that thing is $75,000. Might as well pick up an Epic with a nice Master Prime for that king of money!

 

[Nils J. Nesse]

2/3" is only slightly smaller than 16mm. I've seen used Arri Standard speeds in 16 format for good prices. If you have more money, both Ultra Primes and Cooke s4s are available in 16mm format.

Then there is the Zeiss DigiPrimes , which I guess are the Master Primes of the 2/3" format...

 

[Peter Franzen]

If you have more money, both Ultra Primes and Cooke s4s are available in 16mm format.

That's the confusing part to me though-- if you have more money, why not buy a 35mm sensor that can use a ton of extremely inexpensive lenses? Why pay less on the sensor if I'm just going to have to buy or rent expensive 16mm film lenses for the wide end?

20mm primes are a hell of a lot more common than 7mm primes, at least from a still photographer's perspective. What market is the 2/3" sensor targeting, exactly?

 

[Jaime Vallés]

That's the confusing part to me though-- if you have more money, why not buy a 35mm sensor that can use a ton of extremely inexpensive lenses? Why pay less on the sensor if I'm just going to have to buy or rent expensive 16mm film lenses for the wide end?

Bingo. Depending on the prices of the RED Mini primes, the S35 Scarlet brain ($7000) combined with inexpensive Nikon lenses may be the best bang-for-your-buck.

 

[Peter Franzen]

Makes sense to me. I already have plenty of nice full-frame and APS-C Canon lenses and the Scarlet that I buy is going to depend a lot on the pricing of the mini primes.

 

[David Rasberry]

2/3" is targeting the most common HD production format in the world. More HD broadcast production is shot on 2/3" systems than all others combined. It is equivalent in most respects to standard 16mm film size, super 16mm is a little larger. Any prime or zoom lens that works for standard 16mm will work for 2/3" with almost no change in FOV.
For my own use I plan for a 2/3" cinema with used 16mm lenses, mostly premium quality fast zooms, as I don't like to have to change lenses very often. Even with used lenses, I will wind up with at least the cost of the body invested in good glass, probably more.
It seems a shame to hobble a $7k S35 Scarlet with cheap still lenses, they won't produce the quality of image that premium lenses do, whether still or cine format, though they will get you by until you can buy something better. Just don't think that a $300-600 kit lens for a Nikon or Canon will perform on par with the $1k and up premium models. My used 16mm zoom will have more than twice the resolution of most cheap 35mm still camera lenses.

 

[David Rasberry]

Makes sense to me. I already have plenty of nice full-frame and APS-C Canon lenses and the Scarlet that I buy is going to depend a lot on the pricing of the mini primes.

If you already have a good collection of high quality still lenses, then S35 definitely makes more sense.